| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
5th July 2006, 12:44 PM
| | Back in Town
26     
| | Join Date: 5th May 2005
Posts: 9,324
Blessings: 194,598
Reps: 70,872 (power: 86) | | Originally Posted by artybloke Put it another way:
Were Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man any less adapted to their particular environment than we are? The reason they died out is because in the end they either changed into something else, or didn't adapt as a species quickly enough to their environment when it changed.
The problem is that you're tacking a philosophy (the idea of "progress") onto a scientific process that has no inherent purpose. Human beings, of course, do tend to look down their noses at people from the past and think they're "better" than they were then. But that's a subjective, not a scientific, judgement, certainly as regards evolution.
Pure science doesn't make those kind of judgements: it merely reports on what it sees happening. Science has no teleology; it's descriptive not prescriptive.
A better explanation than I could have mustered. |
5th July 2006, 08:45 PM
| | Lie Detector
49   
| | Join Date: 13th June 2006 Location: South Dakota
Posts: 1,287
Blessings: 90,996
Reps: 4,026 (power: 11) | | Originally Posted by Proselyte So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?
[/quote]Why would that be necessary? They were adapted to their unique environment. I have the feeling that your view of Evolution doesn't conform to what the science is?
__________________
Geology: fossils in different ages
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
5th July 2006, 11:20 PM
|  | Left the river, made it to the sea
36 
 | | Join Date: 10th May 2005
Posts: 18,660
Blessings: 47,347
Reps: 9,912,024,706,364 (power: 9,912,024,731) | | Originally Posted by Proselyte The title asks the question. No one disputes Jesus living some 2000 years ago. As Evolutionists, do you believe that man of our time is more evolved than Jesus, a man of his time? Do you believe that future man will be more evolved than Jesus?
Karl Rahner's Christology within an evolutionary view of the world in abstract: http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner610.htm
I have the book 
__________________
“This is the man I want myself to be but who cannot exist, because God does not know anything about him. And to be unknown to God is altogether too much privacy. My false and private self is the one who wants to exist outside the reach of God’s will and God’s love –outside of reality and outside of life. And such a self cannot help but be an illusion." -- Thomas Merton |
6th July 2006, 01:07 AM
|  | Legend
   
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by Proselyte So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?
The original question was about Jesus and presumably his first century CE contemporaries. We haven't had time to progress in mental prowess since then, no matter how much new knowledge we have accumulated.
The same probably applies to Cro-Magnon since Cro-Magnon is an early H. sapiens culture, not a biological ancestor of our species. AFAIK, there is no anatomical difference between Cro-Magnon and you, including brain siaze.
Neanderthal may have had a different mental capacity--I hesitate to say lesser as I just don't know--but that is irrelevant, since they were not our ancestors either, so any progess in mental prowess in Neanderthals would be independent of that occurring in our lineage.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
9th July 2006, 11:35 PM
|  | Contributor
30  
| | Join Date: 29th April 2004 Location: Guaynabo, Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,194
Blessings: 124,711
Reps: 66,151 (power: 79) | | | This sounds like the question asked to Jesus about giving to Ceaser what is Ceaser's.
More evolved as in having changed from how man was 2000 years ago, YES.
Better evolved than man 2000 years ago, not necesarily.
Better than Jesus, NEVER.
__________________ This forum's name is still Christian Forums. "There is no more terrible sight than ignorance in action." - Wolfgang, Goethe, Johann Bush: "We're in trouble if this Avian Flu mutates." Anti-Evolution Base: "Mutates?! You mean, like, evolves?!"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
9th July 2006, 11:50 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 22nd June 2006
Posts: 481
Blessings: 90,917
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | Yes, Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved. |
9th July 2006, 11:59 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29 
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Poke Yes, Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved.
Again, considering most creationists subscribe to the sort of superevolution that leads from a single "kind" ancestor to the diversity of dogs, cats, horses, etc. that we see today in less than 4000 years, I have to wonder if maybe it is the creationists, not the "evolutionists", who believe we are "more evolved" than Jesus. I would love to see Poke address this issue rather than just poking at strawmen all the time and putting words into the mouths of scientists. Come on, Poke, let's see you support yourself for once!
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
10th July 2006, 12:21 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24 
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved.
Which of these evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus? Originally Posted by shernren So nope, I don't consider myself more evolved than Jesus, not that I know what you mean by "more evolved" in the first place. Originally Posted by random_guy More evolved and less evolved doesn't make much sense. Originally Posted by Silent_Bob Firstly the time is very small and secondly "more evolved" doesn't mean better or superior. Originally Posted by Assyrian Even if man does evolve further, nothing will change the fact that we are sinners who have fallen far short of God's glory. Personally, I think that is more important. Originally Posted by Mallon I think that would be a better question to ask of those creationists who believe in the sort of hyper-evolution from the original "kinds" that lead to our modern diversity, don't you? Surely their evidence must indicate we are more highly evolved than Jesus.
(emphasis added) Originally Posted by artybloke It occurs to me that the reason for the confusion is the mistaken view that evolution is about "progress." Human beings are not "better" now than they were in Jesus' time; Originally Posted by Dannager I'm pretty sure no one holds that viewpoint, Proselyte, especially since evolution doesn't pass judgment on what is "more evolved" or "more advanced" as long as the population remains extant.
...
we cannot say that we are better adapted to our environment than Jesus was adapted to his. Originally Posted by gluadys But what is "favorable"? "Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment. So we can be better adapted to today's environment, while Jesus and his contemproraries were better adapted to theirs. And our great-grandchildren will be better adapted to theirs.
But the differences are just differences. They don't imply a progress, only adaptations to changing environments.
...
The original question was about Jesus and presumably his first century CE contemporaries. We haven't had time to progress in mental prowess since then, no matter how much new knowledge we have accumulated.
If you want to misrepresent our position, won't you at least quote-mine something we actually said, so that we can bask in receiving the same derogatory treatment that leading evolutionary scientists do? Better than Jesus, NEVER.
John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
Of course, I don't mean evolution by this verse, but I don't think Jesus will ever take offense to us ever doing anything "better" than He could. Obviously He is not referring to His work of redemption and salvation, which is His alone, but I believe that He refers to the work of spreading His Gospel throughout the world and bringing glory to the Father. By leaving behind a body of many people in the place of a single physical body, He effectively made it possible for the Gospel to reach into the whole world to reclaim for Himself a people from every nation, tongue, and tribe. In that sense we are "better" than Jesus, and it is a measurement taken straight from Jesus' words themselves.
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
10th July 2006, 12:42 AM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 22nd December 2005
Posts: 7,349
Blessings: 42,941
Reps: 1,170,005,508,018,711 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by The not very nice Rep Bot says: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again. *grouse, grouse, grouse |
13th July 2006, 11:52 AM
| | Regular Member
23
| | Join Date: 31st July 2005
Posts: 256
Blessings: 90,587
Reps: 1,049 (power: 8) | | | what's a "YEC" ? | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
